Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:26:53 +0300 (MSK) From: "."@babolo.ru To: nils@tisys.org (Nils Holland) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Two devices, one Interrupt Message-ID: <200201102326.CAA12756@aaz.links.ru> In-Reply-To: <20020110212211.A59757@tisys.org> from "Nils Holland" at "Jan 10, 2 09:22:11 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nils Holland writes: ...... > The only thing I noticed is that if I run "systat -vm 1" while both devices > share IRQ 5, I do only get one device entry for IRQ 5, labelled "mux", > obviously named after the soundcard. This "mux" entry now seems to count No. "mux" is for any shared interrupt > both the interrupts for the sound card and the WinTV board. If, however, > both cards use their own interrupts, systat shows two seperate entries, one > labelled "mux" and only counting soundcard interrupts, and the other called > "bktr0", only counting the interrupts for the WinTV board. In this case your soudcard share interrupt with somethig else > That's however the only difference I've seen when comparing the cards with > a shared interrupt vs. non-sharred interrupts, but I still wonder if > there's any technical reason why it would be beneficial to give both cards > their own interrupts, or if I just don't need to care. > > Any hints are welcome! > > Nils > > -- > Nils Holland > Ti Systems - FreeBSD in Tiddische, Germany > http://www.tisys.org * nils@tisys.org -- @BABOLO http://links.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201102326.CAA12756>